Energy Policy Issue Rankings and Bush's Presidential Approval Numbers
Posted by Prof. Goose on July 21, 2006 - 11:35am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: energy policy, george w. bush, oil, peak oil, pew research center, poll, presidential approval [list all tags]
Pew was doing a piece on the impacts of An Inconvenient Truth on the global warming attitudes--a major focus of the poll, but there's some things to chew on in there regarding energy policy attitudes as well. I discuss some of the findings and implications under the fold.
The difference between the global warming issue importance and the energy policy issue importance surprised me a bit. I suppose that it probably shouldn't with gas prices so high, but I thought the two would be more closely ranked than they are.
Global warming is the least important (19th) issue among self-identified Republicans (23%), while energy policy is the tenth most important issue (56%).
Global warming is only the 13th most important issue among self-identified Democrats (56%), while energy policy is the tenth most important issue (66%).
For energy policy, there isn't much of a partisan pattern, which is a little surprising--or should it be?
Among independents though, global warming is the 13th most important issue (49%), while energy policy is the seventh most important issue (67%). I found that interesting as well.
The first thing this tells me there's more political hay to be made amongst swing voters with regard to energy policy than partisans. Of course, that doesn't always mean doing the right thing; it means appearing to do something.
The issues that politicians will be addressing, with the Republicans attempting to maintain their majorities in both houses of Congress and Democrats attempting to make gains, are going to be the issues that Independents--the folks who are less likely to vote along party lines and whose preferences/behavior are more malleable--think are important, which after you get past the "big three" that are always present (education, health care, and the economy), means a focus on terrorism, Iraq, and Social Security. Energy policy might get a little play, especially if there is a oil price spike, etc., but it won't be a major focus unless world events get even worse, at least not with politicians seeing this data.
Remember, as I have said many times, politicians are rational and pragmatic, they do whatever they can to keep their job. That means they watch these polls and put out the biggest fires, hoping that the little fires don't grow and catch them off-guard. Energy policy could be the fuel for one of those fires. (Yeesh, did I just say that? Heh.)
Next up, further down in the report, when we look at Bush job approval on certain issue areas, the numbers are more closely tied together between the climate change and energy policy issues. On global warming and energy policy, Bush received a 26% approval rating, while receiving a 56% disapproval rating on energy policy (44% on global warming).
(What I would like to see is a study on how much people parse these issues. How many people think of climate change and energy policy as inherently tied together?)
Sure, there's no doubt a lot of these approval numbers are tied to increasing gas prices (which to the Bush administration seems to mean increasing supply by whatever means possible, even if that means growing more corn or pushing fuel cells even harder).
However, it seems to me, and I am going to do some digging on this, that the salience of energy policy is increasing--not really going out a limb there, am I? (though I am efforting some data to back that up, see below). While it doesn't mean people are learning about peak oil per se, it does mean that they are thinking about where they get their energy more and more.
The numbers on energy compiled at Polling Report (I'll work on putting a plot of these together over time--but the questions are asked so differently by the organizations, it's tough to do a valid time series comparison) would seem to indicate an increased salience as well, but it's a tough conclusion to draw from the data.
So, anyway, that's enough for now. Enjoy!
House:
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_House06.cfm
Senate:
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_Senate06.cfm
We may be looking at another 2 years of GOP rule.
There's a great book on the history and technology of gerrymandering by Mark Monmonier called Bushmanders and Bullwinkles. Quite good.
I think a real argument can be made that the US House of Representatives, as an institution, has simply ceased working as it is supposed to. The House was supposed to be the body most representative of the people because it was theoretically 'closer' to them -- but the gerrymandered districts means the median voter that is in effect represented by legislators in these gerrymandered districts are far more partisan than voters as a whole.
Here's an interesting piece here that addresses it:
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2006/06/polarized_partisans_probably.php
However, I don't think one can argue either-or positions here -- clearly the US political system is a complex system with numerous feedback loops. No doubt the increasing polarization that began in the 1970s has led to partisan redistricting which is causing additional polarization.
And, anyway, who cares?? Senators and Comgressman don't even read the bills they pass into law. And after the laws are passed, they are changed anyway (huh?). And it has been proven that we now have secret laws - pretty tough to obey a secret law, isn't it? As a citizen - not a comsumer, a citizen, dammit! - I demand the right to see all legislation before it is voted on so I can give my gov't representative my opinion. However, this is not possible.
Has it always been this way? Maybe. Probably.
The only decisions voters make is "R" or "D". (David Putty: "Gotta support the team")
Sadly, I will not be voting this November...
I think I'll write my sons name in,,he's only 5 but he says whats on his mind and is not shy to voice an unpopular opinion.
ie. (as he went up the stairs to bed the other night)Mom,,your butt's big
Was he telling the truth?
Suggest everyone watch the special on George Washington, The Warrior on the History channel. He did it right. he hated the job, and was glad to leave. and never returned to public service!
I for one will VOTE, and i will vote any and every incumbent OUT!
As i am reminded that our soldiers fight for our right to participate in a democratic election.
The congressional THUGS who sang God Bless America after 9/11 on TV are the same thugs who can't seem to deal with any important issues. And are selling us down the river with immigration? The Senate is no better, maybe worse! They are all out of touch with the common man!
Suddenly, gay marriage, steroids and flag burning are more important than immigration and energy? I don't think so. I will VOTE!
I encourage every one else to VOTE, as long as you VOTE!
C:\ format /s political_system
That said, energy does seem to of active interest to many of the electorate. I think people are realizing that it is time for decisions and actions. Voters do take their responsiblities seriously most of the time.
Politicans have to differentiate themselves from their competitors in elections. A politician who has voted against ANWR, against offshore drilling, and against nuclear power will be criticized by opponents. What were once "nice to have" positions will probably be examined with a more critical eye by voters since energy policy is increasingly a both a pocketbook and a national security issue.
People realize that the Mideast would be a lot less important if we have other energy sources. The Iraq War may not have been "all about the oil," but high energy prices and short supply empower people who wish us harm for religous reasons.
The pushback is NIMBYism. Voters affected by local energy projects will have to make a decision as to what's more important - local issues or national ones. At some point in an energy crisis, the NIMBYs lose anyway.
What will continue is "pie from the sky" promises - who can spend more of your money on solar and wind. Any smart politican will keep promising but make sure the REAL energy keeps flowing. Let Gray Davis be an example for Arnold and others.
Like the heat?
(If I am wrong about your meaning, sorry, and please clarify.)
Someone mentioned the extreme envirom. disruptions of putting in all that solar and wind.. you don't need to clear forests to do it. It should be roofing material, by and large, where it is closest to the consumption anyway, and so is the least affected by line-losses. Wind can share space between planted fields across much of the country, and also be near at hand to a hungry energy consumer, the farmers. I wonder what options are out there for Electric Tractors? I know there are small ones.
Combines are time critical. The best use of bio-fuels and remaining crude oil/tar sands might be to bring in the harvest !
Those are jobs created, where's the problem? ;)
Not necessarily. There could be a quick-change battery instead, where charging spots at the base of a turbine would be readily accessible to the fields. Think of the batteries used in warehouse forklifts, etc.. I seem to recall that Tractors actually depend on their weight to give them traction, too.
There are certainly other vehicles and pieces of stationary equipment that would be able to use the current as well. Not being a farmer (and I suspect I'm not alone in that), those who are could tell us more..
Of course, it might be possible to design some fields to be longer and somewhat narrower, with tracks along both sides, and the work once done by a variety of specialised tractors would be handled with a gantry-crane approach. That movement should reduce the energy requirement by huge amounts, not having great wheels fighting through soft soils.. (Electrified Farming Rail systems.. got a ring to it, doesn't it?) Could also be oriented in a radial setup, like the Irrigation Wheels, perhaps.. Tools get attached out at the circumference, work the field like a record player..
Certainly some tasks are essential to be done with more portable, convenient fuels. We have the opportunity to examine which can be reevaluated and revised.
Bob Fiske
I also don't see what the advantage of it outside of politics is either. You can vote to drill in ANWR, off shore, build more nuclear plants, and in the end our energy policy still is pure shit. Just drilling holes is not going to solve our problem. Frankly, the argument can be made that our problems are so big that whether or not we drill in ANWR is entirely inconsequential.
In any case, the road forward can't consist of more drilling. That is a dead end alley. Maybe if we plow forward stubbornly we can drive along for a few more blocks, but in the end we're going to run out of road and right into a brick wall. Sooner or later, we have to turn off onto snother street if we want to achieve any sort of long term solution to this problem. If wind and solar are just pie in the sky, then we'd better come up with some way to change that, or find some more viable alternatives quickly, because vainly drilling for more "REAL energy" is just not going to cut it.
Electrify our freight railroads amd force (via free market & gov't incentives) frieght off 18 wheelers and onto railroads.
Finance new Urban Rail like we did the Interstate Highways. 90% matching. No $ limit for for any decent project. Build, build, build !!!
So, we must ask ourselves where these people got this idea. One idea that the ExxonMobil propaganda effort has put out is that the world's climate is rebounding from the cooling of the "Little Ice Age". This explanation has no credibility among the scientists. Yet, I doubt that most of those citing natural variability have ever heard of it.
I wonder what good it does to tell me this. In fact, all it does is have a depressing affect on mood for those who know something. I wonder what they think at Pew Climate. Nice try, Al.
I suppose a strategy might be to link climate change and energy issues to what people do care about: economy, terrorism, health care....gay sex, etc.
As for their politics...it depends where you go, but there are comparable institutions that are overwhelmingly conservative republican -- military officers or business elites, for instance.
Choosing to listen to businessmen over academics says more about your own personal biases than it does about the quality of information offered by either businessmen or academics. Choosing to listen to someone because they say what you want to hear does not make them more credible. Now, maybe I'm unfairly singling out businessmen as you mentioned scientists in the field as well.
I guess, what it comes down to in my opinion, is most people live in a world of their own construction. Few people are fully in touch with what's going on beyond their own tiny little sphere. In the end you have to look at the facts yourself and come to your own conclusion about the broader picture. I wouldn't necessarily say a businessman or scientist in the field can offer you valid information beyond that of his own tiny world either.
EVERYBODY live in a world of his/her own construction!
This is the very definition of individuality, assuming that there a "one and only" reality is the path to disaster!
Here I don't mean that there are not ultimate "hard facts" which are compelling to anybody but that the value of events and so called "facts" is entirely dependent of one's own idiosyncrasies even more than on one's apparent interests.
In the end you have to look at the facts yourself and come to your own conclusion about the broader picture.
That's sounds hollow to me, I guess everybody is doing this already.
May be you are just frustrated (as I am too...) that not so many are close to your own opinions.